The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-04-07
A STINGING REBUKE.
Barnett Gibbs Answers the Prohi-
bitlon Leader, Rev. Calvin


DEAR SIR notice that in the Dallas
Herald of March 81, you address an open
letter to myself, and for the life of me
can't see why you should have done SO I'M
less for the sake of notorlety, as we haven't
the pleasure of a personal acquaintance.
You are certainly mistaken in my having
devoted much of my speech to personal
references serving to identify YOU" I'M
less in using your language 1T was recog-
nized by others who heard your speech or
sermon. You don't charge that l used
your name, but try to convey the i'm
preston that 1 am prosecuting you be-
cause you are from Kansas. Evidently
you are without provocation trying to
pose as a martyr, but this is too old a
political chestnut to take In your let
ter your refer in contemptuous
manner to "a class OF men
recently imported from for
eign lands" who family applauded my re-
marks. With all due Difference to your
self, these recently imported citizens of
whose presence you complain, had each
one been much longer resident of
Texas than yourself, and might paren-
thetically remark that their sort have
what she is than any immigration we
have received from Kansas. These citi-
zens were not "imported," as charged by
you, but came by their own free will and
accord, because they preferred Texas and
the hospitality of its people to your be-
loved state of Kansas, with its innumera-
BILE isms and restrictions on personal
liberty. From the disparaging mamie
(''imported," in which you refer to these,
our foreign born citizens, some of whom
fought for Texas independence, | con
slider it my duty to warn you that Know
nothingism never found much favor in
its palmiest days IN Texas. Now, that
you are the bran newt will not say sim
ported, leader of great movement, 1T
will be of benefit to you to somewhat I'M
derstand the temper and the history of
the host you are to lead to victory.
You speak of your ancestry being in the
revolutionary war, and wonder if mine
were there. don't know that this con
ceited-no matter how characterization
on your part can possibly affect the merits
of the pending question. don't care to
go back with you to the revolutionary
war, but if it is a matter of interest to
you, will remark what is we'll known to
many people of Texas, that not my fore
fathers, but my own father and other
members of my family recently sacrificed
their lives in contenaing against isms
and for this, if for no other reason,
am not likely to bite at them with the same
alacrity as trout does at fly. With the
cant peculiar to men from your section
you refer to me as champion of the
liquor traffic." l care nothing for these
penny phrases if they suit your purpose
but will merely rise to remark that the
liquor traffic, with all of its evils, never
shed as much blood for Texas and the
south as has fanaticism, and the same is
true of the world over.
Now, for the remarks in my speech, OF
which you complain even more bitterly
than you do of the presence of "turri
ners." said that "a Kansas preacher
opened the campaign in Dallas church
in behalf of the prohibltionists of the
state; that in that speech he said 'this is
the Lords fight, and We must vote as we
pray" said that the speech was pc.
htical, although delivered in the church
interspersed with prayer and the singing
of hymns, and that this was a new charac,
ter of campaigning in the south, although
we have, in times gone by, had some
pretty lively political fights, I said fur,
Their that the same gentleman, the author
of the principal resolutions in the Waco
convention of the prohibition party, had
assumed editorial charge of the prohibi.
ton organ in Dallas and one of his first
efforts was an abusive editorial on Gov
Ireland, who had been for forty years a
distinguished citizen ana democrat OF
Texas, and man of exemplary moral
character. Said editorial wound up by
saying that "Gov. Ireland would